Kinect is not required to be plugged into the xbox one

[Bigduo209]

There are devs on this board that will tell you that peripherals will not be invested in unless the attach rate is incredibly high. It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem. Gamers want proof the device is worth it, but devs won't spend much time thinking about it unless gamers buy it. My concern is that even allowing people to unplug the thing and put it away in the closet will be enough of a deterrent to devs making use of it, because they'll now have to mark, "Kinect Required" on the game packaging.

But unless both consoles have it required, there's no financial incentive to support it otherwise. Unless Microsoft is providing some kind of low-cost support structure and people actually take to XB1's Kinect en masse, that doesn't guarantee third-party developers will spend time and money on it long after. If MS actually wants it to succeed, they'll keep pushing first-party support for showing the full Kinect experience. That's only forseeable way to continually justify it.

The Sixaxis (PS3) and Motion-controls (Wii) were also console standards, but developers didn't put much effort into those implementations either. Maybe MS has the right amount of industry influence to make it happen.

It seems fairly obvious that the traditional gamepad is a gameplay limiter. I think Kinect being pushed as a controller replacement was a bad idea. They should have invested more internally in finding ways to use Kinect to augment the traditional experience. I was hoping that is what they'd do this time around, and Kinect would be standard, plugged in and turned on for all consoles.

The controller isn't a limiter considering all the actions and functions that are at your finger tips. Motion control and voice recognition are limiters in terms of how much information has to be processed to achieve similar functions with buttons in the first place. How much processing power has to be set aside
to make a Kinect game with an interactive open world? How do you communicate to an audience how they're supposed to play a game with their own body? The human body can move in a number different ways and not every person has the same range of motion, so that can conflict with what the game demands from the player. There maybe limitations as to what you can do in-game that may require a ridiculous number of gestures and movements that may not be feasible, whether that's because of the play space involved or possibly having a disability.

You shouldn't enforce that on everyone when it's not suitable for everyone.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that Kinect 2 could suck, but it seems unlikely. They seem to have made big improvements on accuracy, and some improvement to lag and the Xbox One has more power to handle a bigger workload. It certainly won't be equivalent to using Kinect 1 on 360.

Between voice control, motion control and facial recognition, I'm sure someone will find useful new ideas, it just might take time. Maybe Kinect is not the killer app, but it's something other than the same dual-stick gamepad we've been playing with for over a decade. $100 is not a big deal at launch. I know price tends to win out, but it's $100 for a device you'll use for the next five to ten years.

I know you're perfectly willing, but how many other people are willing to take that same risk? How many probably took that risk on the 360 with the original Kinect and it put them off to it? While it may be improved, there has to be ample evidence of an improvement if the first time around wasn't that great. And being asked to take an even bigger investment a second time means more skepticism on the average buyer. The XB1 w/ Kinect is $500 no matter how you slice it, and it's also competing with the 360, PS3, and the Wii U in pricing too (I can't leave the poor U out).

But I could be wrong looking at it that way. Maybe MS doesn't care as long as they're able to make a marketing distinction between the other console brands? Maybe they don't see Kinect needing to work that well as long as it helps put their ecosystem and services in a better light when combined, whether that's the 360 or XB1. Maybe Kinect just needs to work well enough on either system to give them a unique edge over everyone else.

*Phew!* Well I'm done talking about it for now... :smile:

 

[Scott_Arm]

You may have a point about third party support.

Kinect plus a gamepad is more limited than the same gamepad alone? I don't really see how it can be argued that Kinect creates less options.

 

[Jay]

I say they shouldn't label games as Kinect required.
The assumption should be all games have some level of Kinect functionality.
If someone doesn't like Kinect, then it's on them to read reviews and see if the game is for them or not.

Should games say, controller required, sound required?
If you choose to play with sound off and miss half the experience, then that is your choice.

If your deaf, or have issues with the controller (maybe a disability), then you research a game to know if it is suitable for you, same with Kinect.

You can use the XB1 without a controller or with out Kinect, the choice is yours, just expect experiences to vary.

I keep hearing people talk about choice, don't bundle it, give people a choice.
What about the people who wants a choice of having a console where Kinect is part of it, every XB1 having one, total 1-1 penetration.
The people who buys into MS vision and wants to see where it goes.
Where developers don't have to consider how many people may have it.
People who see's it as a possible change to the "just improvement like every other gen in terms of graphics" etc. (obviously not including wii)

I rarely say this as I believe consoles should be as open and inclusive to everyone as possible.... (and it is)
But the choice, the option you have is to not buy XB1, there are other alternatives if you really don't want to pay for something you have absolutely no intention of using.
If you want to wait and see how well it's doing in a couple years time, that's also an option.

Their not removing options, their giving the market as a whole options.

 

[Shortbread]

My question are as followed...

"If" the PS4 becomes the lead platform for game development, why would 3rd party companies care about taking out the additional development time/money on getting Kinect 2 to work for a user base that will be fractured, because of the "not always on" needed scenario?

If 3rd party game developers are going for parity between consoles, so its not to alienate one particular group (PS4/PC), what's the benefit for them adding Kinect 2 functionality?

If 3rd party engines (Unreal, Crytek, etc...) are already system taxing, why would they even consider using Kinect 2 features, since the Xbox 1 hardware paper-wise is the lesser of the two (PS4/PC)? Wouldn't those extra resources allotted for Kinect 2, be best served for overall game performance and IQ parity?!

 

[eastmen]

What do people say/think about Crytek stating that they changed Ryse from being a Kinect game to a gamepad based game as they couldn't make it work such that they could deliver a 'hardcore' experience as Cervat said?

Crytek guys are the brightest tec heads around, but even they couldn't figure out how to hardcore Kinect. This shows me personally, that Kinect will not contribute to an experience I am looking for, or that substantial development effort is needed to make it happen, which may hinder a lot of devs to consider it.

I think that it might be an intrinsic problem of the device...even if they could reduce the lag to zero: moving your whole arm or body is way slower than just moving your thump or finger (gamepad). Heck, PC people even laugh about gamepad controls because they are so slow compared to K&M.

I really can only think of a boxing simulation game, where the kinect idea attracts me and might add value to the experience. However, we have to wait and see if the tec is really there, even for such a naturally suited application, as we experienced e.g. how people moaned about input lag of Killzone 2.

In conclusion, I am very happy that I do not need to use Kinect. I am unhappy that I have to pay for it and that due to Kinect, the X1 costs 100 more. I would have prefered the Sony approach, where Kinect is not bundled, X1 for 400 and Kinect optional.

Its all about the time frame .


Ryse = xbox 360 Kinect title

Ryse then = xbox 360 pad game

Ryse then = xbox one pad game.

In that time table they never tested Kinect 2.


If Ryse = xbox 360 Kinect title
Ryse then = xbox one Kinect title
Ryse then = xbox one pad title.


Its hard to tell what and why. Because ryse isn't a Kinect game any more doesn't mean Kinect one can't be used for hardcore titles.

 

[wco81]

So Ryse is an exclusive title, which MS presumably paid to make exclusive, but it won't have Kinect2 support?

 

[Scott_Arm]

So Ryse is an exclusive title, which MS presumably paid to make exclusive, but it won't have Kinect2 support?

It does. It's basically voice command and some gesturing controls, but it doesn't seem like anything particularly involved.

 

[NRP]

Ryse looks like a terd, at least from a game play perspective. It doesn't surprise me that Crytek is unable to make a compelling game play experience with Kinect. For all their technological prowess, they are pretty mediocre at game play design.

 

[NRP]

Aside from that, can someone maybe enlighten me why people are so scared of Kinect, yet phones with front facing camera's that are always looking at them is ok, or Android phones that can be remotely turned on and made to record without the users knowledge yet no one cares, or their webcam on their laptop is always looking at them but that's fine, or their cam on their tablet watches them while they are web surfing on the toilet and that's no problem, etc, etc, etc. It's a serious question that I just can't find the answer to, why is every other device with a video camera or mic on it perfectly fine and accepted but Kinect is considered the end of privacy as we know it? I just don't understand the difference especially when tablets, phones, etc with their cameras and mic's tend to follow people in more private moments of their lives like in their bedrooms, the bathroom, etc...

It's called "selective outrage".

 

[temesgen]

Ryse looks like a terd, at least from a game play perspective. It doesn't surprise me that Crytek is unable to make a compelling game play experience with Kinect. For all their technological prowess, they are pretty mediocre at game play design.

The initial showing from E3 didn't impress me either bc at the time it looked like a series of QT events but I've read stuff written since then which suggest some changes are being made and also that the original presentation didn't accurately reflect the title. Hopefully they sort it out.

 

[dobwal]

My question are as followed...

"If" the PS4 becomes the lead platform for game development, why would 3rd party companies care about taking out the additional development time/money on getting Kinect 2 to work for a user base that will be fractured, because of the "not always on" needed scenario?

If 3rd party game developers are going for parity between consoles, so its not to alienate one particular group (PS4/PC), what's the benefit for them adding Kinect 2 functionality?

If 3rd party engines (Unreal, Crytek, etc...) are already system taxing, why would they even consider using Kinect 2 features, since the Xbox 1 hardware paper-wise is the lesser of the two (PS4/PC)? Wouldn't those extra resources allotted for Kinect 2, be best served for overall game performance and IQ parity?!

I don't know. Did the PS2 being the lead platform for game development keep devs from using the HDD on the XBO and XBOX Live?

Basic Kinect functionality should at least be as capable on the PS4 cam, so Kinect will probably help leverage implementation of motion control on PS4 games. If you are using it on the XB1 why not the PS4, where a peripheral exists that supports the functionality. I don't thinks its a coincidence that the PS4 cam is the same price as a PS4 controller. I am guessing if Sony didn't think much of the potential of its camera it wouldn't be as affordable as its controllers.

Resolution would probably make a better target to accommodate hardware performance differences between the hardware.

 

[wco81]

Well you would think they would at least try to show a first-party or exclusive game being enhanced by K2 at some point.

There is a certain tide of negativity about the K2 so if they really believe in it, they should have their first-party developers work on something to show (and I don't mean tech demos but real game features), rather than backing away and now allowing it to be completely unplugged.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The initial showing from E3 didn't impress me either bc at the time it looked like a series of QT events but I've read stuff written since then which suggest some changes are being made and also that the original presentation didn't accurately reflect the title. Hopefully they sort it out.

People keep saying its QTE, it's not.

 

[zed]

Sorry if I've missed it but have they mentioned how much lag kindect 2 has. Someone mentioned it's better than kinect1 which doesn't say much as kinect1 lag was terrible. I.e an improvement of terrible could be still bad. What are the actual numbers (not impressions) is it less than 20msec which is about the border I think to be able to do a hard core game. If it's under this number there are a few ways that it can improve game play for a hard core game

 

[XpiderMX]

IGN said lag is not noticeable .

 

[dobwal]

Sorry if I've missed it but have they mentioned how much lag kindect 2 has. Someone mentioned it's better than kinect1 which doesn't say much as kinect1 lag was terrible. I.e an improvement of terrible could be still bad. What are the actual numbers (not impressions) is it less than 20msec which is about the border I think to be able to do a hard core game. If it's under this number there are a few ways that it can improve game play for a hard core game

It went from 90 ms to 60 ms.

 

[dobwal]

People keep saying its QTE, it's not.

Was it motion controlled finishing moves? I am imagine that could be a wonderful feature of kinect, customized finishers in fighting games.

"I call this the twerking tea bagger!!!"

 

[BoardBonobo]

It's called "selective outrage".

I think the biggest difference is that the Kinnect will be sitting in front of the TV where it can view the entire family. It doesn't spend its life stuffed in your back pocket or with it's lid closed. There are lots of times that your mobile device is capable of monitoring you but there are also lots of times that it isn't. Not so with the kinnect. Also your mobile device is usually only capable of viewing the person using it. You have a choice there, but not so with the kinnect.

I also think that, considering MS's involvement with PRISM etc, that people are more aware of the uses that it can\will be put to. Even if it's just something like targeted advertising which is more or less guaranteed.

Just recently a family reported that their FOSCAM baby monitor had been compromised, which is very simple to do, and some male was making lewd comments to their 2 year daughter over the camera. Fortunately, in this case, their daughter is deaf and so was not affected.

I'm under no illusions that any camera that is IP based or accessed through a networked is 'safe'. The kinnect might be slightly safer than most devices by virtue of being attached to a private network, but it is still a risk. People have a right to be worried but it is up to MS to set the record straight. But given their recent track record I don't have much hope they can.

 

[BoardBonobo]

IGN said lag is not noticeable .

Carmack said it was 'like a zero button mouse with lots of lag'. I guess we'll get the feedback from Gamescon when people actually get to use it for real.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Carmack said it was 'like a zero button mouse with lots of lag'. I guess we'll get the feedback from Gamescon when people actually get to use it for real.

Carmack was talking about Kinect V.1 when he said that, not about Kinect V.2.

Regards,
SB